Re: That time IPv6 farted in Gene's church (Was Re: forcedeth?)
Hi Jimmy,
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:15:28AM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> >On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:13:12AM -0700, Jimmy Johnson wrote:
> >>On 05/26/2019 11:03 PM, Andy Smith wrote:
> >>>There doesn't seem to be any point in interacting further.
> >>
> >>Andy that's the most helpful thing you've said,
> >
> >I guess you missed the response where the very first thing I did was
> >to actually show Gene how to disable IPv6, even though I predicted
> >it wasn't his issue, and then he later agreed (in a response to
> >another poster) that it wasn't his issue.
>
> You predicted it wasn't his issue, you knew that for sure, like you know
> what the issue is but your not saying. That's not a question, I'm being a
> sounding board.
I've no idea what Gene's issue is because he never gives enough
information to work it out, and you can try to extract that from him
but all you get is rambling. However, his direct question (how to
disable IPv6) was very simple to answer (so I did), and seeing him
state in multiple places that IPv6 was the root cause of his
problems I thought it was worth trying to get to the bottom of that.
I was wrong about that second bit: in general it is worth it, but
Gene doesn't want to, and you can't debug without the user's
consent.
Once again I think it is unfair of you to say that me giving up is
the most helpful thing I've said, when I did actually answer his
direct question.
> IPv6 just like systemd, kernel modules, programs with added code, etc. and I
> really can go on, but the point is the mere mention of somethings start
> arguments and trolling since day one.
So am I to understand that you think it is fine that someone posts
misinformation for reasons known only to themselves and should never
be asked to justify it?
I'm not interested in some rambling war about X vs Y, I'm interested
in seeing a concrete issue and fixing it.
If someone wants to say "XYZ software sucks" or even, "XYZ was made
by the Communists/NSA/aliens to destroy Linux" then I'm not going to
bite, because that's not something you can ever disprove to someone.
However, when someone makes direct claims like
"IPv6 being enabled in my kernel caused me to be unable to
configure IPv4, and also broke my XYZ software's configure, and,
and, and, …"
then that is something that can and should be investigated.
As you've seen, once it's been shown that someone only wants to post
emotional rambling I give up on them, so it's never going to go any
further. However, you are prolonging it by popping up to throw
around accusations of being a troll…
> >>so please don't troll.
> >
> >Is your definition of trolling "asking someone to back up their
> >statements"?
>
> Yes, often it is trolling, it's a deliberate act of discrediting a poster
> who may often be expressing his personal experience working with technology.
Wow. I didn't realise that Gene was being awarded a participation
medal and being encouraged to just fill the list with creative
writing. It really doesn't seem like that would scale if encouraged
for every poster.
The problem isn't that Gene has difficulties. We all have
difficulties. The problem is that Gene invents a root cause,
declares the problem solved, won't accept any attempt to
prove/disprove his theory, and then just restates his opinion as
fact over again in other threads.
I don't think it helps Gene to encourage that. It certainly won't help
anyone else searching for bugs with the same software.
> So please don't troll.
I don't accept this as a definition of trolling, but you can rest
easy that you won't see any more of it from me in response to Gene.
Anyone else who is actively avoiding answering direct questions or
carrying out simple diagnosis when being helped though, is going to
get asked why. The first few times could be miscommunication or I
could always have misunderstood, but with some people a pattern does
quickly emerge.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Reply to: